- (1.) The instant Revision application is directed against the order dated 15.09.2005 passed by the learned court below, whereby the prayer of the petitioners under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. for their discharge from the case was rejected.
(2.) The case against the petitioners was registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged by the informant Smt. Bilia Mahtain at Dhansar Police Station. The allegations as contained in the F.I.R. are that the informant is the owner of a piece of land under Khata Nos. 24 and 25 which constitutes her 1/5th share inherited from her father. The petitioner No. 1 is the niece of the informant while the petitioner No. 2 is the husband of the petitioner No. 1. Being closely related, both the petitioners had expressed their desire to purchase the informant's land to which she agreed. The accused persons, namely, the present petitioners however, persuaded the old lady to accompany them to Kolkata for execution and registration of a sale deed on the plea that the Registration of the sale deed at Kolkata can be done on a much lesser fee than what was chargeable at Dhanbad. The informant believing the accused persons, accompanied them to Kolkata alongwith one Mangal Rewani and on 16.10.1993, the accused persons got a deed executed by the informant and the deed was registered at Kolkata. However, the accused persons did not pay the settled consideration amount promptly and assured the informant that they will pay the money on their return to the village. Thereafter, inspite of repeated requests and demands made by the informant, the accused persons did not pay the consideration amount. After about 10 years in the month of September, 2003, the petitioner No. 1 proposed to sell the informant's land to a prospective purchaser, namely, Nand Lal Gupta. Before entering into a contract of sale, the prospective purchaser approached the informant on 15.09.2003 in order to verify as to whether the informant had legally transferred the proposed land to the petitioner No. 1 and he produced a photo-copy of a deed, which was represented by the petitioners before him as the deed of transfer executed by the informant in their favour. The informant got the document read over and explained to her by the deed writer of Dhanbad Registry Office and to her dismay, she may found that it was not deed of sale. Rather it was a deed of gift bearing Registration No. 15226 dated 16.10.1993 indicating, therein, that the informant has gifted her property to the petitioner No. 1. Being confirmed that she was defrauded by the petitioner, the informant issued legal notice to them but the accused persons did not respond to the notice. In absence of any response, the informant lodged a complaint before the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad vide C.P. Case No. 1456 of 2003. The complaint was referred to the Police for registering of case and investigation, whereafter it was registered as Dhansar P.S. Case No. 713 of 2003 on 29.12.2003.
(3.) After concluding the investigation, the Police submitted chargesheet recommending trial of the accused petitioners for the offences under Sections 420 465 468 469 471 and 120B of the I.P.C. After cognizance of the offences being taken by the Magistrate, the case was transferred to the court of the Judicial Magistrate for trial. The transferee court proceeded to commence trial but at the stage of commencement, the petitioners filed their application under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C, praying for their discharge. However, by the impugned order, the learned Judicial Magistrate rejected the prayer holding that from the materials on record, there appears a prima facie case sufficient enough to proceed against the accused persons with the trial by framing charge against them for the offences under Sections 420 and 120B of the I.P.C. The instant Revision application is directed against the aforesaid impugned order of the learned Judicial Magistrate.;